July 24, 2006
Is Hizb'Allah America's Problem?
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Michelle reminds us that it is, indeed.
Posted by: Ragnar at
09:51 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Our war or not - she correctly points out we have unfinished personal business with Hizb'Allah. I have not forgotten, and I am not forgiving.
Posted by: hondo at July 24, 2006 12:10 PM (MVgHp)
2
Chris Mathews is a pussy. So now liberals are supporting violence and bullying on the playground but please don't pick on hezbollah?
All the badasses from my school were conservatives.
All the badasses from my school were conservatives.
Posted by: Howie at July 24, 2006 01:42 PM (D3+20)
3
Dammit we should just get it all over with. We should stage four mechanized Army divisions in Iraq and two in Afghanistan, putting two on the on the Syrian border and four on the Iranian, with the two Airborne divisions each in respective countries to follow and flank the armor, and let three divisions go into Syria while the Marines and Israelis take Lebanon. With four mechanized divisions sitting on either side of them, along with lots of airpower in the sky, and the Navy waiting offshore, the Iranians wouldn't budge until we were done crushing Syria and Lebanon, and would have to patiently wait their turn for annihilation, or sue for peace. Of course, they could get stupid and start a fight, which would be great.
Syria would take about two weeks to fall, and the supply lines into Lebanon would dry up. It would take a while to mop up all the scumbags, but destroying Syria, and I mean razing its cities to the ground, would serve as an example to the rest of the animals in the arab world, who only understand violence, and can only be reasoned with when they have a boot on their neck. Once the forces pulled out of Syria and Lebanon, Iran would be a pushover. The biggest challenge of the whole mess would be the traitors among us, and the UN, but we have to take a stand soon, or we'll miss our last chance.
Syria would take about two weeks to fall, and the supply lines into Lebanon would dry up. It would take a while to mop up all the scumbags, but destroying Syria, and I mean razing its cities to the ground, would serve as an example to the rest of the animals in the arab world, who only understand violence, and can only be reasoned with when they have a boot on their neck. Once the forces pulled out of Syria and Lebanon, Iran would be a pushover. The biggest challenge of the whole mess would be the traitors among us, and the UN, but we have to take a stand soon, or we'll miss our last chance.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 24, 2006 03:05 PM (v3I+x)
4
This has been on my mind for a while. This is a war on terrorism. If it is, then why is all of the attention on the Middle eats? There's a violent communist insurgency in the Phillipines. PKK only gets a few seconds on the news whenever they attack. North Korea has been supporting the drug trade and left-wing terrorist groups in South America. Then there are all of those conflicts in Africa. DRC, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, etc.
Posted by: Some Dude at July 24, 2006 03:40 PM (llVQM)
5
It's not a "War on Terror," and anyone who's paying attention knows it.
You can't reasonably wage war against an emotion (i.e., fear), nor can you reasonably wage war against a strategy (i.e., terrorism). I hope we'd be just as opposed to the Qutbists if they succeeded in rebuilding their Caliphate, completely renounced "terrorism," and began an invasion of Andalusia with a conventional military force.
The truth is, we're engaged in a war against the fanatical adherents of a violent strain of religious fundamentalism. We are at war with them because they're a serious threat to us. Of course, it's politically incorrect to say so, so we speak of a "War on Terror."
You can't reasonably wage war against an emotion (i.e., fear), nor can you reasonably wage war against a strategy (i.e., terrorism). I hope we'd be just as opposed to the Qutbists if they succeeded in rebuilding their Caliphate, completely renounced "terrorism," and began an invasion of Andalusia with a conventional military force.
The truth is, we're engaged in a war against the fanatical adherents of a violent strain of religious fundamentalism. We are at war with them because they're a serious threat to us. Of course, it's politically incorrect to say so, so we speak of a "War on Terror."
Posted by: All-Seeing Eye at July 24, 2006 05:57 PM (c/4ax)
Posted by: pivalleygirl at July 25, 2006 04:50 AM (BQRI6)
7
One cannot make war on a concept, ideology, or strategy, but only against one's enemies. Our enemies are all leftists of every flavor, and all muslims. We did not choose our enemies, but rather, they chose us, and it is up to us to crush them. A good liberal or muslim is a dead one, because as long as one remains alive, the viral memes they carry will spread and infect more people. Leftists and muslims are each a signifcant threat in their own right, but they have combined forces to destroy Western civilization; the leftists by undermining our society, and the muslims by attacking it. It's time to stop lying to ourselves, take off the gloves, and get it over with.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 25, 2006 08:46 AM (v3I+x)
32kb generated in CPU 0.0113, elapsed 0.0529 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0475 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0475 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
